Yeah, I get pissed if I see screenshots or thumbnails that have spoilers in sections of games I haven't completed. Especially like boss battles. I want to be surprised when I get there, dammit.
Quite honestly, there are several games in my collection that I typically only play for 5 minutes and then stop. Just enough to remember what connected me to it in the first place. As a kid, we rarely rented games for multiple days or played them for hours on end with the intent of beating them. Maybe the first 5 minutes is all that is needed to get a picture that the casual gamer can relate to.
Regarding the screenshots I always try to show some later parts in the game, but without spoiling anything like bosses or important scenes. And of course I always play the game multiple times and try to beat it, before I'm going to write a review about it.
I have tried to avoid this when writing for my blog. It makes sense to cover as much of the game as possible since I'm playing through the games all the way anyway.
I've seen a few video reviews that source footage solely from the beginning of the game - I instantly assume they didn't play much of the game and lose confidence in their "expert" opinion.
ROM sites that showed only title screens as a preview used to really bug me too.
Yea, but the people who write them are the same people who claim "Gamers are dead". Because insulting your own audiance is a smart flipping thing to do.
Yea, but the people who write them are the same people who claim "Gamers are dead". Because insulting your own audiance is a smart flipping thing to do.
I've always been writing, I just put them in books now... Thing is, I just try to select iconic screenshots and if it ends up being from the first level, that doesn't bother me. However, I also format my reviews in a more simplistic way than others.
The other aspect is spoiling.... writing about older systems, I don't worry about if you haven't seen the boss from Super Mario Bros 3 or Zelda. However, I try to avoid final levels in the more obscure games.
Just like today you can typically tell they played the game for 20 or 30 minutes and wrote an entire review.
This! How easy is to tell that someone never really even bothered to play the game.
One of my favorite compendiums is guilty of this, Le bible Nintendo. If you type into google any of the transliterations that they used, the first screen shot that pops up is the one in the book (and they are not from the book's site, but from a variety of sources). Not only are they from the first level, they are the go to shots of that game. Other than that it is a great book, but using lazy screenshots leaves it feeling like maybe they just copied and pasted the info from somewhere else too (which does not seem to be the case, but my French is a little rusty).
Yea, but the people who write them are the same people who claim "Gamers are dead". Because insulting your own audiance is a smart flipping thing to do.
This is the benefit of me playing the games entirely throughout, and recording the game in the process.
I was going the route of just using Title Screen + Level 1, but I had room for one more picture in every review so I figured I'd go with another random screenshot at a later point in the game too.
I think including the title screen and level 1 is an absolute must though for these kinds of books. People want to remember that game they played as a kid and might not remember unless they see level 1, or the title.
Yea, but the people who write them are the same people who claim "Gamers are dead". Because insulting your own audiance is a smart flipping thing to do.
In a nut shell, a bunch of editors of video game websites all decided to attack the gamer identiy at the same time, even though these people were their only market. This was at the same time their own ethics were being called into question. The fallout of it is more than a few compnies now won't deal with "games media" and insted work directly with youtube personalities and streamers.
Personally, I like to show the best screenshots possible, and if that includes end bosses (even endings), so be it. For me I don't have any rules other than I write what I'm feeling and there are no limits. Then again I'm that guy too who shows way too many pictures. It's just nice though because I have 10+ year old reviews that I can revisit and go whoa, I really get a sense of game x, y or z and almost don't even have to play it (though in many cases I still do replay it lol). I try to avoid reading reviews if I haven't played the game yet. I'm very weary of being spoiled and know it's my fault if I click on a review and see ending (boss) pics or the like. I kind of just assume the same for my readers/visitors. For me it's always been a "at your own discretion" approach, and I write honestly first and foremost for myself. I have found that's just the best way. And if your work is any good, it'll find an audience naturally.
Anyway, does it bother me to see reviews showing only screenshots of level one? Bother isn't the right word. I just think it's very casual, which I get. But the best reviews IMO really dig deep and show off a variety of the game's various levels.
One thing I really don't understand about reviews is how people take them so personally. I just don't understand the gaming community sometimes. People flipping out because Final Fantasy 15 only got a 8/10 from IGN (it literally seems like every game falls between 6-9 anyway). Have these people even played it? Do they think it deserves more simply because it's FF? Why so loyal?
If I like a game I could care less what others think of it. If I think it deserves a 9 and someone gives it a 5, who cares?
One thing I really don't understand about reviews is how people take them so personally. I just don't understand the gaming community sometimes. People flipping out because Final Fantasy 15 only got a 8/10 from IGN (it literally seems like every game falls between 6-9 anyway). Have these people even played it? Do they think it deserves more simply because it's FF? Why so loyal?
If I like a game I could care less what others think of it. If I think it deserves a 9 and someone gives it a 5, who cares?
I wonder if professional critics will give higher ratings to certain games just so they won't have to deal with a pissed off fanbase.
One thing I really don't understand about reviews is how people take them so personally. I just don't understand the gaming community sometimes. People flipping out because Final Fantasy 15 only got a 8/10 from IGN (it literally seems like every game falls between 6-9 anyway). Have these people even played it? Do they think it deserves more simply because it's FF? Why so loyal?
If I like a game I could care less what others think of it. If I think it deserves a 9 and someone gives it a 5, who cares?
I wonder if professional critics will give higher ratings to certain games just so they won't have to deal with a pissed off fanbase.
Yeah, I wonder that too. Or if the company is being paid a certain amount or something. So funny when you see an ad for the game being reviewed before the actual review. I am often very skeptical when people who are sponsored by anyone give a review about something.
Comments
I find most decent reviews go over the whole game.
There is the argument to be made that you don't want to "spoil" later content.
This, and perhaps it is thought that the first level of a game is most recognizable.
Regarding the screenshots I always try to show some later parts in the game, but without spoiling anything like bosses or important scenes. And of course I always play the game multiple times and try to beat it, before I'm going to write a review about it.
Hard to like, comment, and subscribe to a written article.
I find most decent reviews go over the whole game.
I consider those retrospectives.
ROM sites that showed only title screens as a preview used to really bug me too.
Are written reviews even a thing anymore?
Yea, but the people who write them are the same people who claim "Gamers are dead". Because insulting your own audiance is a smart flipping thing to do.
Are written reviews even a thing anymore?
Yea, but the people who write them are the same people who claim "Gamers are dead". Because insulting your own audiance is a smart flipping thing to do.
I've always been writing, I just put them in books now... Thing is, I just try to select iconic screenshots and if it ends up being from the first level, that doesn't bother me. However, I also format my reviews in a more simplistic way than others.
The other aspect is spoiling.... writing about older systems, I don't worry about if you haven't seen the boss from Super Mario Bros 3 or Zelda. However, I try to avoid final levels in the more obscure games.
Originally posted by: Andy_Bogomil
Just like today you can typically tell they played the game for 20 or 30 minutes and wrote an entire review.
This! How easy is to tell that someone never really even bothered to play the game.
One of my favorite compendiums is guilty of this, Le bible Nintendo. If you type into google any of the transliterations that they used, the first screen shot that pops up is the one in the book (and they are not from the book's site, but from a variety of sources). Not only are they from the first level, they are the go to shots of that game. Other than that it is a great book, but using lazy screenshots leaves it feeling like maybe they just copied and pasted the info from somewhere else too (which does not seem to be the case, but my French is a little rusty).
Are written reviews even a thing anymore?
Yea, but the people who write them are the same people who claim "Gamers are dead". Because insulting your own audiance is a smart flipping thing to do.
Gamers are dead? What does that even mean?
I was going the route of just using Title Screen + Level 1, but I had room for one more picture in every review so I figured I'd go with another random screenshot at a later point in the game too.
I think including the title screen and level 1 is an absolute must though for these kinds of books. People want to remember that game they played as a kid and might not remember unless they see level 1, or the title.
Are written reviews even a thing anymore?
Yea, but the people who write them are the same people who claim "Gamers are dead". Because insulting your own audiance is a smart flipping thing to do.
Gamers are dead? What does that even mean?
Means you were lucky enough to advoid seeing a bunch of internet drama and all that #gamegate bs. http://thisisvideogames.com/gamergatewiki/index.php?title=Gamers_Are_Dead
In a nut shell, a bunch of editors of video game websites all decided to attack the gamer identiy at the same time, even though these people were their only market. This was at the same time their own ethics were being called into question. The fallout of it is more than a few compnies now won't deal with "games media" and insted work directly with youtube personalities and streamers.
Man that's annoying...
Anyway, does it bother me to see reviews showing only screenshots of level one? Bother isn't the right word. I just think it's very casual, which I get. But the best reviews IMO really dig deep and show off a variety of the game's various levels.
If I like a game I could care less what others think of it. If I think it deserves a 9 and someone gives it a 5, who cares?
One thing I really don't understand about reviews is how people take them so personally. I just don't understand the gaming community sometimes. People flipping out because Final Fantasy 15 only got a 8/10 from IGN (it literally seems like every game falls between 6-9 anyway). Have these people even played it? Do they think it deserves more simply because it's FF? Why so loyal?
If I like a game I could care less what others think of it. If I think it deserves a 9 and someone gives it a 5, who cares?
I wonder if professional critics will give higher ratings to certain games just so they won't have to deal with a pissed off fanbase.
One thing I really don't understand about reviews is how people take them so personally. I just don't understand the gaming community sometimes. People flipping out because Final Fantasy 15 only got a 8/10 from IGN (it literally seems like every game falls between 6-9 anyway). Have these people even played it? Do they think it deserves more simply because it's FF? Why so loyal?
If I like a game I could care less what others think of it. If I think it deserves a 9 and someone gives it a 5, who cares?
I wonder if professional critics will give higher ratings to certain games just so they won't have to deal with a pissed off fanbase.
Yeah, I wonder that too. Or if the company is being paid a certain amount or something. So funny when you see an ad for the game being reviewed before the actual review. I am often very skeptical when people who are sponsored by anyone give a review about something.